Speaker 1: Hello everybody, ladies, gentlemen, brothers, sisters, comrades, friends. Alexander von
Speaker 1: Sternberg here giving you another episode, another special interview episode
Speaker 1: of History Impossible. You have no doubt seen who is
Speaker 1: featured on this episode, but I just want to say
Speaker 1: I am very happy to be joined this time with
Speaker 1: the celebrated journalist and fellow history podcaster Eli Lake, who
Speaker 1: I believe his main stint right now is at the
Speaker 1: Free Press, but he's written for all sorts of different
Speaker 1: publications over the years. He's been a correspondent in places
Speaker 1: as far flung and dangerous as Iraq during the Iraq War.
Speaker 1: We talk a little bit about that, actually, at least
Speaker 1: he references it. But yeah, I decided to have him
Speaker 1: on because he is a very very accomplished, very good podcaster.
Speaker 1: He is on that short list of podcasts other history
Speaker 1: podcasts that I listen to with his show Breaking History
Speaker 1: associated with the Free Press, And honestly, I've been, like
Speaker 1: I said, I've been listening to his show for a while.
Speaker 1: But what caught my ear was a recent re release
Speaker 1: of a two parter he did, I believe last year,
Speaker 1: where he talked about the birth of modern Iran and
Speaker 1: it was re released in light of all the chaos
Speaker 1: and tumult going on over there what appears, or at
Speaker 1: least appeared for a while to be quite possibly a
Speaker 1: second Iranian Revolution. Regardless, he did a great job with
Speaker 1: his podcast talking about how things got to the point
Speaker 1: where there was a revolution in nineteen seventy nine and
Speaker 1: how it all fell apart, at least for those who
Speaker 1: were not on the side of the theocratic thugs under
Speaker 1: the I tol Komeni. And in the midst of that
Speaker 1: story that he told, he talked about the Red Green Alliance,
Speaker 1: which I thought paired very nicely with my recent special
Speaker 1: episode about the Brown Green or Green Brown Alliance, because honestly,
Speaker 1: there really doesn't seem to be a shortage of alliances
Speaker 1: of conveniences when it comes to Western political radicals suddenly
Speaker 1: deciding they're in love with Islam or Islamism. Even so, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we talked about that and it was a lot of
Speaker 1: fun and it was all too brief. Hopefully we'll be
Speaker 1: able to do it again sometime. But anyway, that's what
Speaker 1: I have for you guys on tap today. I want
Speaker 1: to thank everybody who supports this show over on Patreon
Speaker 1: or sub stack, including my stalwart companions and friends John
Speaker 1: Andre Saither and Mike Mayleban who continued to support me
Speaker 1: through all of this. I appreciate it to no end.
Speaker 1: If you guys want to support History Impossible, head over
Speaker 1: to Patreon dot com, slash History Impossible, or to just
Speaker 1: history impossible dot com and become a paid subscriber there.
Speaker 2: Today.
Speaker 1: I appreciate all the help I can get. We're on
Speaker 1: the final stretch of grad school for me, so you
Speaker 1: know the dead It's going to have to get paid
Speaker 1: at some point soon, so it will really help me
Speaker 1: out here. And I'm actually really excited to share with
Speaker 1: all of you what I'm working on for this final
Speaker 1: semester of research that I'm doing, not including of course,
Speaker 1: my thesis. It's a lot of fun. It was actually
Speaker 1: going to be a substack piece, but then I became
Speaker 1: obsessed and I realized there's a lot there. So we'll
Speaker 1: be getting a proper deep dive, properly cited analysis of
Speaker 1: what I'm looking at. And I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: anything else, but anyway, without further ado, let's get into
Speaker 1: some impossible history with Eli Lake.
Speaker 3: Let me to tell you what you would have seen
Speaker 3: and heard, if we'll not be pleasant listening, if you
Speaker 3: were at lunch, or if you have no appetite now
Speaker 3: it is a good time to switch author.
Speaker 2: Radio, an ancestor mine maintained. If you eliminate the impossible,
Speaker 2: whatever remains, however improbable, you don't know. I don't know
Speaker 2: without an impious I wish I could say tonight that
Speaker 2: a lasting peace is inside. I don't feel the aloughing dream.
Speaker 4: I feel a lot in.
Speaker 3: Night wore.
Speaker 2: On. If we share fresshure to guilt, if we share
Speaker 2: for assure to guill.
Speaker 1: Some say the world will end empire, some stay a night.
Speaker 1: From what I've tasted of desire.
Speaker 2: I hold of those of favor fire.
Speaker 1: But if it had to perish twice, I think I
Speaker 1: know enough of hate to say that the destruction nights
Speaker 1: is also great and would suffice. This is history and possible,
Speaker 1: all right. I'm here with the accomplished and awesome writer
Speaker 1: and reporter for various publications, including The Daily but Daily Beasts,
Speaker 1: excuse Me, Newsweek, Bloomberg, and now the Free Press, Eli
Speaker 1: Lake and for our purposes. He is the host of
Speaker 1: the Breaking History podcast, one of the few podcasts I
Speaker 1: am able to listen to at this point in my wheelhouse,
Speaker 1: and I I really love it, and thank you again
Speaker 1: for joining me, Eli, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: My pleasure, Alex, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's just talk a little bit, just do
Speaker 1: a little bit of a in case somehow people don't
Speaker 1: know breaking history if memory serves. The genesis for breaking
Speaker 1: history was actually your previous podcast, The re Education. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: and you did get into history and politics, you know,
Speaker 1: relatively often there too. I actually remember, I don't think
Speaker 1: it was the first one I listened to, because I
Speaker 1: definitely was listening to you a little bit before that.
Speaker 1: But your your epic on the Church Commission was oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I honestly want to go back and re listen to
Speaker 1: it because there's just so much there. I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: mid twentieth century history does seem to be somewhat your wheelhouse.
Speaker 1: So and that really well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I like that. But I have to say I
Speaker 2: did one on the mccabees and for the re Education,
Speaker 2: which I really enjoyed. I did a one on the
Speaker 2: Roman Republic for they honestly feed what was kind of
Speaker 2: a it was a pro to breaking history. So you're right,
Speaker 2: I do tend to focus on twentieth century, but I'm
Speaker 2: interested in other stuff. We did one on the Opium War,
Speaker 2: which is nineteenth century, and I've got some things planned
Speaker 2: for twenty twenty six where we're definitely going to be
Speaker 2: in the twentieth century for the first mini season of
Speaker 2: Breaking History, which will be out in May, which is
Speaker 2: we're going to do a different format now, so we'll
Speaker 2: do kind of a deep dive with five or six
Speaker 2: episodes on a singular topic. But you know, I just
Speaker 2: like history, and what I like to say is I'm
Speaker 2: not an historian. I have a lot of respect for
Speaker 2: the good ones, but like Dan Carlin says on Hardcore History,
Speaker 2: which is like one of my inspirations, and same here.
Speaker 2: Love Dan Carlin, but what he says is, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not an historian, but I read the best and
Speaker 2: I try to do that. And like Carlin, I'm a
Speaker 2: journalist and I take a journalist approach to history. So
Speaker 2: I have skills as a journalist and I'm a writer.
Speaker 2: I think I'm a pretty good storyteller, and what I
Speaker 2: like to do is kind of take those skills and
Speaker 2: use them and apply the skepticism that I've learned, you know,
Speaker 2: of a in my very long career as a journalist.
Speaker 2: I'm now fifty three and I've been doing it since
Speaker 2: I was I guess in college, so that's you know,
Speaker 2: more than thirty years and applying it to like history
Speaker 2: but not one of the things I don't want to
Speaker 2: do is like the and that's the story of or
Speaker 2: isn't this interesting? Or like you know, I like to
Speaker 2: so what history, what breaking history is trying to do?
Speaker 2: And I think we accomplished it in most of more episodes.
Speaker 2: And when when we're at our best is we like
Speaker 2: to say, Okay, this is something that is bedeviling us
Speaker 2: right now, that's kind of in the news, and here's
Speaker 2: the context of that. This is where it goes back.
Speaker 2: So you know, I don't know, like to give some
Speaker 2: examples from last year, you know, when we when it
Speaker 2: looked like it was pretty clear a mom Donnie was
Speaker 2: going to be the first socialist mayor or real socialist,
Speaker 2: I mean, I should say David Dinkins was technically a
Speaker 2: member of the DSA, but he ran as a Democrat.
Speaker 2: I did a story kind of the history of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Socialist of America and actually the episode was the
Speaker 2: history of socialism in America, and we spent a lot
Speaker 2: of time looking at Michael Harrington, and that was very
Speaker 2: satisfying because it was like a way of understanding, you know, Okay,
Speaker 2: who is this guy who is about to be the
Speaker 2: mayor of New York.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we get these highs and lows with the Democratic
Speaker 1: Socialists too, and a lot. I mean, if I remember right,
Speaker 1: one of the founders of the party has really come
Speaker 1: out hard against the direction it's been going in am
Speaker 1: I remembering that correctly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is correct. Maurice Issermon, who is the biographer
Speaker 2: Michael Michael Harrington's basically the founder of the party, Okay.
Speaker 2: And Maurice Userman, who was one of his you know,
Speaker 2: protegees and also his biographer, left the dsay after October
Speaker 2: seventh because the Democratic Socialism of America could not bring
Speaker 2: themselves to condemn a pug rum.
Speaker 1: Which we'll be getting into in a little bit, I think.
Speaker 2: But yeah, by the way, just as we're finding now,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think you have to sort of distinguish
Speaker 2: between the tanky left and the you know, feel good left,
Speaker 2: and I think that there's that you're seeing. The tanky
Speaker 2: left has nothing to say about the massacres in Iran.
Speaker 2: In fact, no, their worst, the worst tankies in the
Speaker 2: in the Western Left, like Max Blumenthal, are just regurgitating,
Speaker 2: vomiting up the lies and propaganda of the regime itself
Speaker 2: justifying this. I don't want to like, you know, we
Speaker 2: don't really have numbers. We have estimates, but some estimates
Speaker 2: are higher than thirty thousand in literally two days. That
Speaker 2: is kind of a number. Now, Yeah, I mean I can't.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to do. I mean, listen, I
Speaker 2: don't need to know the numbers. I know, I know
Speaker 2: I have enough credible reports of what they're doing. They're
Speaker 2: literally going into the hospitals and killing the wounded. They're
Speaker 2: charging the families for the bodies of their loved ones,
Speaker 2: and they're having them sort through un marked body bags
Speaker 2: to find the corpses of their family members. Is absolutely
Speaker 2: disgusting and not to put not to say it too graphically, Alex,
Speaker 2: but I mean Kamenee and his henchmen deserve to be
Speaker 2: hanging from the same crane they use to execute dissonance. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that would be an appropriate end to that, to those monsters,
Speaker 2: to those demons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I yeah, And that's the thing I mean I
Speaker 1: did want to talk I mean, because you know, part
Speaker 1: of what I wanted to talk to you about was
Speaker 1: related to this. You know, when I say ongoing issue
Speaker 1: with Iran, I mean ongoing since nineteen seventy nine. But
Speaker 1: I mean it's especially when talking about the stuff that's
Speaker 1: been happening in the last month or so. It's just
Speaker 1: we don't there's no way to make that a conversation
Speaker 1: about that evergreen in a way except to just say,
Speaker 1: as of now, which is right now, it's January thirtieth,
Speaker 1: there are, as you say, tens of thousands of dead people.
Speaker 1: We don't even know the extent of what's going on,
Speaker 1: you know, there yet, but as you say, you have
Speaker 1: a very good idea of the character of it and
Speaker 1: the general scale of it, which is yeah, so but yeah,
Speaker 1: I you know, I was thinking about this, and I
Speaker 1: made a note about this, and we are kind of
Speaker 1: talking about the contemporary moment. What do you make of
Speaker 1: this sudden recent ish turn of democratic politicians, including Mom Donnie,
Speaker 1: but also AOC and everybody just seeming to very quickly
Speaker 1: coalesced around this condemnation of anti Semitism that they couldn't
Speaker 1: really seem to bring themselves to do for the past
Speaker 1: two years or so that I mean that is it
Speaker 1: just mid term syndrome. I mean, that's kind of what
Speaker 1: I first assumed. But it did feel very coordinated in
Speaker 1: a way which I hesitate to use that words. It
Speaker 1: feels conspiratorial. But it just was so sudden and seemingly
Speaker 1: out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: Notice all first of all, that that I appreciate that
Speaker 2: what you did there is the opposite of what a
Speaker 2: conspiracy theorist would do, which is to say something looks amiss.
Speaker 2: When you see so many Democratic politicians who were uh
Speaker 2: not critical of the sort of I don't know whatever
Speaker 2: the leftist route, the leftist uh you know.
Speaker 1: The Red Green Alliance will be getting to in a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, And and then now they sort of are saying,
Speaker 2: wait a second, you guys are have have i'd saying
Speaker 2: you love hamas and queens? What Now? Some of that
Speaker 2: is just like a kind of like it's politicians, especially
Speaker 2: members of the House, but anyone who has to stand
Speaker 2: for an election has to in some way have their
Speaker 2: finger and be aware of the shifts in popular opinions.
Speaker 2: So they may be reflecting that it's the gouse of
Speaker 2: war is not in the news every day. The image
Speaker 2: that you know, TikTok is now under I guess a
Speaker 2: kind of different We'll see if it's a different algorithm,
Speaker 2: but it's a different ownership. At least in America, there
Speaker 2: are certain factors that you know, people who are seeking
Speaker 2: political careers where they have to appeal to voters are saying, well,
Speaker 2: wait a second, maybe this isn't cost free. Yet at
Speaker 2: the same time, there is still a pretty like that,
Speaker 2: you know, I take what you said. But then there's
Speaker 2: this activist base which is you know, taking over the
Speaker 2: institutions and Democratics party and also in you know, the
Speaker 2: state local governments of very blue areas of the country,
Speaker 2: and they're imposing purity tests on lots of politicians, so
Speaker 2: they're not stopping. And it's it reminds me a little
Speaker 2: bit of the trans thing where, you know, we saw
Speaker 2: after the twenty twenty four election, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts
Speaker 2: right come out and say.
Speaker 1: You know what, I he took the seventy position.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe biological men shouldn't be competing in women's sports,
Speaker 2: even if they say they're girl. He was killed for that.
Speaker 2: He's they were going to primary him, they were going
Speaker 2: to go after him. And what Moulton did is something
Speaker 2: that Rocanna also did. He did was he said, okay,
Speaker 2: I'm he didn't quite back away from his trans position,
Speaker 2: but then he said he now is the guy who's like,
Speaker 2: I want to take a red scent from APAC. I
Speaker 2: have mixed feelings on APAC at this point, which is
Speaker 2: a separate issue, but that was clearly a soop to
Speaker 2: the same crowd. Now, my view of it is is
Speaker 2: that there's something else. There's a third factor here in
Speaker 2: addition to all of them, and that is that Gaza
Speaker 2: between twenty twenty three and twenty and probably I would say,
Speaker 2: you know, yeah, when twenty twenty five after the ceasefire,
Speaker 2: you had two years where that was the insta cause,
Speaker 2: that was the Omnibus, the Omni cause, the instacause, right,
Speaker 2: and now the Omni cause is ice in our cities now,
Speaker 2: you know like it? And that means and the difference
Speaker 2: between an Omni cause and then like a plank of
Speaker 2: my progressive agenda. Because we're human beings. And if you
Speaker 2: are on the left, you can say, well, I hate Israel,
Speaker 2: I hate the Ice, I like the trans open borders
Speaker 2: and these are my issues. But the thing about an
Speaker 2: omni cause is that it's an emergency. It's a crisis.
Speaker 2: And if you are talking about anything other than the crisis,
Speaker 2: but that I love that phrase. You see it on
Speaker 2: social media now all the time. Don't stop talking about Gaza,
Speaker 2: or don't stop talking about Iran, which I agree, don't
Speaker 2: stop talking about it r on. But that's the point
Speaker 2: of that, is that, like, there's no room to talk
Speaker 2: about climate change when there is a so called genocide
Speaker 2: in Gaza, and there's no room to talk about Gaza
Speaker 2: when Gestapo Trump forces are in our cities. And so
Speaker 2: that's the thing, is that if it's it's not just
Speaker 2: that this is an issue that we agree on in
Speaker 2: this part of our agenda and you can you can
Speaker 2: read it in our convention or whatever. No, this is
Speaker 2: the only thing that we can talk about. And that's
Speaker 2: the that's the kind of problem now we see and
Speaker 2: and in every single one of these cases, obviously it's
Speaker 2: more complicated, Obviously it's more nuanced. Obviously it's a very
Speaker 2: slanted view of things. I mean, it's still is amazing
Speaker 2: to me. And it's the power of that horrible video
Speaker 2: of George Floyd in twenty twenty. Yeah, but that was
Speaker 2: then taken to mean that every police department in the
Speaker 2: country was hunting black men. There that is that's a lie.
Speaker 1: That's just not statistically speaking, it doesn't even register.
Speaker 2: Not even statistic It's been it's Roland Fryar, the.
Speaker 1: Harvard Economy Roll and Friary.
Speaker 2: You can look at all of these things and you
Speaker 2: can go through it and you can say, wait a second,
Speaker 2: that's just not true, and you can still think what
Speaker 2: happened to George Floyd was horrible, which it was.
Speaker 1: I think like ninety eight percent of people probably agree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So, but what I'm saying is that, like
Speaker 2: oftentimes with the instant, with the with the omni cause,
Speaker 2: what happens is that because you kind of get people
Speaker 2: who get into crisis inflation and therefore distort a problem
Speaker 2: way out of proportion, the kinds of policies that they
Speaker 2: end up sort of supporting to address this crisis end
Speaker 2: up being deeply unpopular. Girls. I mean, the crisis that
Speaker 2: created the transgender youth moral panic was the idea that
Speaker 2: if you did not provide what they would call healthcare
Speaker 2: to an eleven year old, that it was unclear about
Speaker 2: what their gender identity was. Then they would commit suicide.
Speaker 2: So you were condemning that adolescent to you know, misery depression,
Speaker 2: they would kill themselves. There was no evidence really for that.
Speaker 2: In fact, there's probably more evidence that people who get
Speaker 2: surgery or take hormones or so forth sometimes end up
Speaker 2: being much sadder and more depressed, and sometimes that won't
Speaker 2: be the reason why they take their own lives. But
Speaker 2: there was no real data to back that up. But
Speaker 2: it was enough. That was a statistic that was a
Speaker 2: kind of so called a fake fact that was then
Speaker 2: used to justify a series of wildly unpopular, ridiculous probably
Speaker 2: similar with George Floyd, the idea that any political party
Speaker 2: would indulge, let alone endorse, defund the police. That's insane,
Speaker 2: That's an insane thing to do. And I went so much.
Speaker 1: Well, I just want to say, I don't want to
Speaker 1: give too much credit to it, but I don't think
Speaker 1: we can underrate the effect of the pandemic. I think
Speaker 1: that pandemics tend to have a deranging quality to them
Speaker 1: that gets underappreciated, especially throughout history, and I think that
Speaker 1: that helped accelerate such things. But at the same time.
Speaker 2: But it was also it's also a social media thing.
Speaker 1: It's like a right exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: In the eure of social media, where we candense every
Speaker 2: thought an argument to two hundred and forty four characters. Right,
Speaker 2: that's another part of it.
Speaker 1: Can we kind of extend this because I like what
Speaker 1: you're saying here, because I do think it's very apt
Speaker 1: in like talking about how people create omni causes, especially
Speaker 1: it's been kind of a feature of American left of
Speaker 1: center politics for I mean, I'm just gonna just say
Speaker 1: ten years, last ten years or so, but I mean
Speaker 1: it's probably been longer than that, at least at a
Speaker 1: cultural level. But it does kind of seem like that
Speaker 1: that fever is taken hold on the American right to
Speaker 1: a certain degree too, when it comes to things like
Speaker 1: ice rates, like that's becoming a very unpopular thing that's
Speaker 1: been going on, Except when you start to break it down,
Speaker 1: it's like the original sort of claim was we're going
Speaker 1: to go after the worst of the worst. That's like
Speaker 1: an eighty five ninety percent approval for something like that.
Speaker 1: But then you get to like, you know, snashing up
Speaker 1: a five year old you know, no one wants to
Speaker 1: see that you get this, you see the people getting killed,
Speaker 1: And I should tell you my hometown is Minneapolis, actually,
Speaker 1: so I mean, I know exactly where all this stuff
Speaker 1: has been going down, and no one, especially anyone back there.
Speaker 1: But no one really except for the most performative types
Speaker 1: on X that I've seen, seem to really like what
Speaker 1: they're scene there. So I'm just wondering if this, like
Speaker 1: maybe we can call it, I like you call it
Speaker 1: uh inflation, Yeah, crisis inflation. Crisis inflation, right, omni cause
Speaker 1: uh formation That seems to be kind of a feature
Speaker 1: of I guess we could call it radical politics these days,
Speaker 1: or maybe performative politics radical than usual.
Speaker 2: And again it becomes I think it's a little different
Speaker 2: because it's like radical politics and the cheap because real
Speaker 2: radicals there's a certain kind of revolutionary discipline that a
Speaker 2: real radical would have that none of these people do.
Speaker 2: A lot of it is performative, a lot of it
Speaker 2: is like, you know, it's the black box, it's the
Speaker 2: black square in your social media profile, it's the it's
Speaker 2: the uh you know in this house sign on your
Speaker 2: lawn orgies right or on the right, it's it's you know,
Speaker 2: like going along with ice or whatever the I mean
Speaker 2: in this case, it was a classic matter of you
Speaker 2: can't keep lying when you have video evidence. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: you can't call everybody a domestic terrorist and that it
Speaker 2: was just it's just I mean, like the behavior of
Speaker 2: Christinome and Stephen Miller is just abominable and embarrassing. And
Speaker 2: you know, if I am not a I don't I'm
Speaker 2: not a strident like never Trumper. In fact, I've I've
Speaker 2: written things about how I've written a lot about the
Speaker 2: law fair against Trump and how Unfarah was and Russia Gate.
Speaker 2: And but at the same time, this is an administration that
Speaker 2: has like no problem just lying. I mean like it
Speaker 2: was a lie. I mean, renee Good is a domestic terrorist.
Speaker 2: That's insane and it's uh and and and I think
Speaker 2: it caught up with them because the video so clearly
Speaker 2: showed that it wasn't that. And like know you can
Speaker 2: have I'm I have a somewhat nance nuanced view of
Speaker 2: Alex pretty at this point, which is like, uh, he
Speaker 2: seemed to have been an activist for sure, and uh,
Speaker 2: some of his tactics were designed, as many activists do,
Speaker 2: to provoke confrontation with law enforcement. But that's not a crime,
Speaker 2: and like the idea that that justifies in some ways
Speaker 2: his his killing is horrible.
Speaker 1: Well, the meme I saw was what was like it's
Speaker 1: and it's a good meme is saying, you know, well,
Speaker 1: he kicked a car one week before he was killed,
Speaker 1: so he deserved to be killed by the state. Like
Speaker 1: that's like come on, like he like y, Yeah, it's absurd.
Speaker 2: So there's like two different things. Like one thing is
Speaker 2: that even the best trained law enforcement when they're in situations,
Speaker 2: are gonna they're going to be horrible, catastrophic mistakes that
Speaker 2: are made. And that is a reality of having human
Speaker 2: beings in institutions like law enforcement. But this the ICE
Speaker 2: and Border Patrol people that are being sent to Minneapolis
Speaker 2: and other cities. The ICE, the ranks of ICE have increased,
Speaker 2: they've lowered their standards, They've brought in people who they
Speaker 2: probably should have been vetted out of the program. You have,
Speaker 2: at least until this week with the new decision to
Speaker 2: bring in Tom Holman to bring some professionalism to these operations.
Speaker 2: You had this clown show approach to immigration enforcement where
Speaker 2: it was all theater. It was all meant to be
Speaker 2: like a viral sixty second thing on you know, x
Speaker 2: or TikTok or Instagram, and that is deeply irresponsible for
Speaker 2: a very naughty problem. Uh you know, and it was
Speaker 2: I'm just like these people are you know, just amateur
Speaker 2: not just amateur isu. It was it's it's worse than that.
Speaker 2: It's like they were in they wanted to kind of
Speaker 2: create this idea. They wanted to to sort of like
Speaker 2: you have awesome power as the government when you're performing,
Speaker 2: when you're when you're basically like executing law enforcement opserations
Speaker 2: like this on a federal level. And for these people,
Speaker 2: that seem like the main goal was again it was
Speaker 2: it was it was the video. And so it's like,
Speaker 2: I can't tell you how much contempt I have for that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the people who should be most
Speaker 2: offended should be the people who are most concerned about
Speaker 2: the problem of border enforcement and the problem of like,
Speaker 2: you know, flood of illegal immigrants in coming into our country.
Speaker 2: So if that's your issue, you should be angry at
Speaker 2: Christy Nome and Stephen Miller and Donald Trump for turning
Speaker 2: your serious issue into a meme. By the way, I
Speaker 2: feel the same. I mean, like I have I absolutely
Speaker 2: love white supremacist and white nationalists. But if I was
Speaker 2: like a hardcore turner Diaries Idaho militia, like white Race
Speaker 2: Forever guy, I would hate Nick Fuentes, I would hate
Speaker 2: Myron Gains. I would hate these like like pathetic, what
Speaker 2: the look max Er Clavicula or whatever the you know
Speaker 2: what I mean? And I would be thinking to myself,
Speaker 2: you know, I've spent like, you know, thirty five years,
Speaker 2: like you know, measuring you know, skulls with my phrenology,
Speaker 2: and like learning eugenics and like doing all of the work,
Speaker 2: and you come in here and you're like this quarter
Speaker 2: Mexican closet case is claiming to speak on behalf of
Speaker 2: all the proud whites. Again, I hate those white nationalists.
Speaker 2: I think it's liberal and horrible. I'm a small c
Speaker 2: traditional kind of class.
Speaker 5: I was going to say, And I do appreciate I've
Speaker 5: always appreciated your commentary on politics from a we'll just
Speaker 5: say right of center perspective, because it does have that
Speaker 5: nuance there and right.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying that there is something to like the
Speaker 2: fact that it's there's a generation of people who really
Speaker 2: they have no appreciation for the intellectual consistency, the intellectual history,
Speaker 2: or any of these things. And so if your issue is,
Speaker 2: you know, the browning of America, you know, my first
Speaker 2: target would be this clown show and you know who's
Speaker 2: so allegedly sort of picked up the mantle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And that actually is a good way to
Speaker 1: sort of like loop us into like talking a bit
Speaker 1: about history, because, as you say, they don't really seem
Speaker 1: to have an awareness of it, those who consume these people,
Speaker 1: I actually think a lot of these well maybe not
Speaker 1: the clown Show, you listen, I don't think any of
Speaker 1: them know much of anything about the history of what
Speaker 1: they're going to do. Maybe flent As does. I can
Speaker 1: never I don't know what to make of him. He's
Speaker 1: like every time I think he's a more on he
Speaker 1: he realized, he shows a craftiness that I just I
Speaker 1: don't know what to make of.
Speaker 2: I think craftiness is the right word. Yeah, idiot, he's
Speaker 2: he's he is, he's a he's like he's a clever
Speaker 2: uh talker, but he doesn't really know things rightens by
Speaker 2: the fact that he just accepts like the classic kind
Speaker 2: of you know, knuckle dragging conspiracy theory about like Jewish
Speaker 2: influence right, yeah, which so forth, which is just like
Speaker 2: anytime I hear that, I'm just like, okay, you're you're
Speaker 2: a dumb thumb. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll loop back to the to the the what
Speaker 1: I call the Green Brown Alliance in a minute, but
Speaker 1: I wanted to jump back to what we were actually
Speaker 1: originally talking about. This was really fun that we just
Speaker 1: went on a big modern day tangent here. But that
Speaker 1: is partly what you do as well, which is ti
Speaker 1: politics and history together, which is very hard to do.
Speaker 1: I I find myself do we need a fair amount too?
Speaker 1: But we were talking about the omniicause earlier, and that
Speaker 1: absolutely defines I think what you talked about in your
Speaker 1: Making of Modern Iran two part.
Speaker 2: Thank you So glad you listened to that. That two
Speaker 2: parter of that was. I thought that was some of
Speaker 2: my best work. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It was amazing and well. And also I listened to
Speaker 1: you talking to Michael moynihan on the moy Hand Report
Speaker 1: about the history of Iran, which you know, we could
Speaker 1: go down that rabbit hole if you want, but I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in this creation of the Red Green
Speaker 1: Alliance or I don't know if you've read Robert Wistrich's
Speaker 1: a Lethal Obsession. It's just massive tone.
Speaker 2: No, I got to read that. I read a great
Speaker 2: book on said, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. But regardless of Lethal Obsession, it's a very
Speaker 1: good book. I honestly, I can't say I've read the
Speaker 1: whole thing because it's so long that I've read chapters
Speaker 1: of it. It's it's I guess I would say it's
Speaker 1: like a definitive history of anti Semitism in that sense.
Speaker 1: But anyway, he calls it the red Green Axis in
Speaker 1: that book, which I always thought was really a fun title.
Speaker 1: But what I think is really clear is that you
Speaker 1: can kind of see that in the question of an
Speaker 1: omni cause. I mean, you saw it with Mom Danni
Speaker 1: back in that video from twenty twenty three where he
Speaker 1: said where he made the infamous boot of the NYPD
Speaker 1: is being laced by the IDF comment he in the
Speaker 1: midst of saying that said we have to make this
Speaker 1: global cause local and making it into an omni cause.
Speaker 1: It was pretty pretty nasty, nasty stuff, And so I
Speaker 1: can kind of see why he would be part of
Speaker 1: this movement of democratic politicians to walk back a lot
Speaker 1: of this stuff by essentially pretending they never said it,
Speaker 1: and by acting like they really care about anti Semitism
Speaker 1: all the time. But so basically what I'm saying is
Speaker 1: I think that the Omni cause has now become kind
Speaker 1: of this way of the Red Green Alliance to make
Speaker 1: sense of things, of itself and of the inconsistencies between
Speaker 1: these things. But I guess I wanted to just, you know,
Speaker 1: jump back to your work on that amazing two parter
Speaker 1: where you talked about that what is the I guess what,
Speaker 1: you know, I'll just I'll make it as broad as possible.
Speaker 1: What is the Red Green Alliance and what is its history?
Speaker 2: Well, the Red Green Alliance is the solidarity that socialists
Speaker 2: have shown and in some cases vice versa for political Islam.
Speaker 2: And you know, so you know, for the most part,
Speaker 2: it is it doesn't really manifest until the nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: nine Islamic Revolution in Iran, because if you think about it,
Speaker 2: Marxists are against organized religion and the Muslim brotherhood or
Speaker 2: the origins of political Islam. Let's start with us in
Speaker 2: Albana and Cairo want to replace the sort of modern
Speaker 2: secular state with a state that is run by Islamic principles.
Speaker 2: So why in the world would these kind of two
Speaker 2: ideology have anything to do with each other. Political Islam
Speaker 2: is kind of you could argue, naturally illiberal and anti
Speaker 2: modern and I would say that you also there is
Speaker 2: I would say, socialism and its core is illiberal as well,
Speaker 2: but it does so under the guise of kind of
Speaker 2: modernism where it's trying to kind of I don't know,
Speaker 2: rescue or save you know, countries from the superstitions and
Speaker 2: the mental bondage, if you will, of religion. I mean famously,
Speaker 2: of course, Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.
Speaker 2: And so why would you know, why why would one
Speaker 2: movement that is deeply hostile to organize religion embrace literally
Speaker 2: political Islam. So the answer is that they It comes
Speaker 2: to kind of a point where the Chavran Mohammed res
Speaker 2: apology is hated by the left, and he's hated by
Speaker 2: the left because he's very close with the US but
Speaker 2: also espetically the CIA, and it he is he has seen,
Speaker 2: I think, through a complete misreading of the history of
Speaker 2: the early fifties as the beneficiary of a kind of
Speaker 2: c I a I six led coup in Iran, and
Speaker 2: there were. There are some legitimate criticisms that the shot
Speaker 2: there's a vaschasm between the super wealthy and and a
Speaker 2: lot of Iranians who are living below the poverty line
Speaker 2: under the Shah. But that's the only fact that the
Speaker 2: left focuses on. I mean, the other fact about the
Speaker 2: show is that he modernized. He and his grandfather ends
Speaker 2: up modernizing Iran, bringing it into the twentieth century. So,
Speaker 2: you know, Mohammed Resasha, who was effectively ousted in seventy nine,
Speaker 2: introduces women's rights. He introduces very important thing. It's hard
Speaker 2: for us to understand in America, but he introduces something
Speaker 2: sometimes it's called land reform, but what it was was
Speaker 2: that it broke the monopoly that most of the mosques,
Speaker 2: Sheia mosques and the sort of organized clerical system in
Speaker 2: Iran had controlled a lot of the land. The were
Speaker 2: absentee landlords. Also, the Polavey family owned a lot of
Speaker 2: land that they you know, and it was kind of
Speaker 2: a system where you had serfs the equivalent of serfs
Speaker 2: in Iran, you know, up to their late fifties early sixties.
Speaker 2: And then these reforms known as the White Revolution were
Speaker 2: aimed at doing you know, at kind of creating the
Speaker 2: conditions where people could own their own farms. It also
Speaker 2: was creating conditions for universalizing education, so they weren't just
Speaker 2: getting like up to the eighth grade through usually religious school,
Speaker 2: but the state would have an interest in making sure
Speaker 2: people were literate, giving people high school. Things like that
Speaker 2: super important. Taking for granted, and the reason the shop
Speaker 2: was not more popular because I think those were these
Speaker 2: are reforms that the original liberals in Iran in nineteen
Speaker 2: oh five in the Constitutional Revolution, which creates the Maudless,
Speaker 2: which is their parliament, which is an institution. Even though
Speaker 2: it has been you know, beaten and battered, it still remains,
Speaker 2: which is one reason for a glimmer of hope that
Speaker 2: we can finally get through this period of the Islamic Republic.
Speaker 2: But he manages to do it, but he does it
Speaker 2: increasingly by consolidting power. It becomes more and more authoritarian,
Speaker 2: and there's an enormous amount of corruption. And what's worse
Speaker 2: is that, you know, the Shop is in this period
Speaker 2: kind of isolated. He doesn't understand the move He doesn't
Speaker 2: really kind of doesn't understand the pulse of his own
Speaker 2: people because he has a court of advisors by the
Speaker 2: late sixties early seventies that won't tell him bad news.
Speaker 2: And so he has this huge party in Persepolis celebrating
Speaker 2: twenty five hundred years of Persian the Persian monarchies and dynasties.
Speaker 2: It's unbelievably lavish. He makes it a huge media that
Speaker 2: he invites world leaders from all over the world. It's
Speaker 2: like Iran taking its place among the great nations and
Speaker 2: its rightful place, restoring its claim to being a great power,
Speaker 2: great nation. And meanwhile, like the rest of the country
Speaker 2: is like, you know, in a kind of stagnating economy
Speaker 2: and they're not doing very well, and you know, then
Speaker 2: things are set off. He has another problem in Iatola Homani,
Speaker 2: who is a charismatic cleric who has been a critic
Speaker 2: of the Shah ever since. He was effectively installed in
Speaker 2: the beginning of World War Two when his father's then
Speaker 2: after his father's exiled and Romani is a very effective critic,
Speaker 2: but he takes advantage of new technology, particularly telephones, and
Speaker 2: is able to get his and tape recorders and tape
Speaker 2: and and and cassette recording recordings, and is able to
Speaker 2: get his audio sermons into the country through a network
Speaker 2: through the mosques because Iran is not totalitarian, it's rather authoritarian.
Speaker 2: That kind of thing is possible. And after on New
Speaker 2: Year's he've toast from Jimmy Carter to Mohammed Resis shapollay.
Speaker 2: Uh he that's sort of the beginning of the revolution
Speaker 2: because it's broadcast all over the you know, the newspapers
Speaker 2: write about it and people see it and it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, you've managed your country so well. People will
Speaker 2: end up bullshit.
Speaker 1: To clarify, uh the Iyetola he was was he in
Speaker 1: France at the time. I mean, I guess I'm one
Speaker 1: of you.
Speaker 2: He's initially exiled to Turkey. Then he goes to Naja.
Speaker 2: The Najaf is the seat of Shia Islam, so that's
Speaker 2: it's not in comb which is an eron, it's Naja
Speaker 2: in Naja. I he you know, writes books on his
Speaker 2: vision for politically, has a book called Islamic Government, which
Speaker 2: is i'd say in my podcast that's like his mind
Speaker 2: comp because he says exactly what he's going to do.
Speaker 2: And then like there are a series of mistakes that
Speaker 2: that the Shah makes. I mean, the first mistake I
Speaker 2: would say is that he should have executed him in
Speaker 2: sixty four when he was first arrested and then kind
Speaker 2: of re offends and continues to challenge him. Said he
Speaker 2: exiles Hi because he don't want to make and.
Speaker 1: Want to imagine if that had happened. That's a good counterfactual.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know, he exiles him, and then he
Speaker 2: he fears in seventy eight, when the revolution is building
Speaker 2: at this time that because Naseev is so close to Iran,
Speaker 2: he'd like to get him as far away. He says,
Speaker 2: could you exile him to Paris? That was a massive
Speaker 2: mistake because Paris, unlike nase is accessible to the Western media,
Speaker 2: and there are enough people around Homani that understand and
Speaker 2: this is where the Red Green Alliance comes in, that
Speaker 2: understand that they can they can they can they can market,
Speaker 2: they can package basically a reactionary cleric as an anti imperialist.
Speaker 2: And it's that anti imperialism that appeals to prominent leftists
Speaker 2: and liberals at the time. So you have Michelle Fuko,
Speaker 2: who is the you know, French postmodernist, probably one of
Speaker 2: the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. It's responsible
Speaker 2: for a lot of the gobbly gook that one finds
Speaker 2: today in all the hyphenated areas studies.
Speaker 1: I read a fair bit of Fuco as an undergrad.
Speaker 2: Yeah we all had to, I mean yeah yeah. So
Speaker 2: he then takes it. He's like a he gets a
Speaker 2: job for an Italian newspaper as a correspondent covering the
Speaker 2: Iranian Revolution, and he's like just loves he loves he
Speaker 2: loves this harmony fellow. He thinks he's like so visceral
Speaker 2: and wonderful. But it wasn't just Fuco. It was Andrew Young,
Speaker 2: who was the Jimmy Carter's US ambassadors to the United Nations.
Speaker 2: It was this guy who's op ed in The Times
Speaker 2: is constantly quoted, Richard Fox, who was like called trusting
Speaker 2: homany and like how he could he could maybe be
Speaker 2: like the Iranian George Washington. It's the series of kind
Speaker 2: of left wing and liberal thought leaders in the West
Speaker 2: who are like, no, the Shaw. You know, he's got
Speaker 2: a vicious intelligence service, the savak, the tortures people. He's he's, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, he's got a you know, cabinet full of kleptocrats,
Speaker 2: and you know, we let's let's let's let this happen.
Speaker 2: This is a true this is democratic, this is a
Speaker 2: good thing. Total wasn't It wasn't really democratic. I mean,
Speaker 2: but like Comanie, it was a liar. He was willing
Speaker 2: to say whatever it was to get into power. So
Speaker 2: he made promises, for example, to the military saying, okay,
Speaker 2: if you don't fire on the protests, then they'll you'll
Speaker 2: be treated well. And and I'm that and and of
Speaker 2: course one of the first things he does when he
Speaker 2: gets back to Iran is he he has them tried
Speaker 2: and executed. He makes promises to the communists, the to
Speaker 2: Dead Party that he wants to be part of a coalition.
Speaker 2: He's not going to be. He's not really interested in
Speaker 2: running the country. And you know, the Tuda party stupidly
Speaker 2: and they were, by the way, like dirt bags, and
Speaker 2: they endorsed terrorism a lot. So I don't want to like,
Speaker 2: I don't want to overstate it, but they they they
Speaker 2: stupidly believed him. Lots of people believed him. Not everyone did.
Speaker 2: There were a lot of Iranians who were warning about it,
Speaker 2: but it was putting a lot of like kind of
Speaker 2: the Iranian intellectuals in an interest a weird position. They
Speaker 2: had their own fairly like and correct critiques of the
Speaker 2: stagnation of Iran under the Shah and how they wanted
Speaker 2: more democracy. That has been a constant theme of the
Speaker 2: entire twentieth century for Iran, which is the balance between
Speaker 2: a king and a constitution. And so they were so
Speaker 2: so on the one hand they saw that, and then
Speaker 2: then but then there's this figure who is incredibly charismatic,
Speaker 2: is able to mobilize a different set of the population.
Speaker 2: If you go back and you look at Mosada and
Speaker 2: what happened with him, Mohammed Mosada was, you know, one
Speaker 2: the heroes of the of the original constitutional kind of movement.
Speaker 2: He emerges more in the nineteen teens and nineteen twenties,
Speaker 2: but he's somebody who for a long time kind of
Speaker 2: represented the most honorable kind of Iranian person, who who
Speaker 2: wanted liberalism for the country and so forth. When he
Speaker 2: when he gets power, he's he kind of he catches
Speaker 2: the authoritarian bug and does a lot of things that
Speaker 2: are illiberal and anti democratic, like dissolving the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and ultimately dissolving the modules itself. But the reason that
Speaker 2: Mossadat is forced to stand down is because the speaker
Speaker 2: of the mosuless and the like most senior Ayatola at
Speaker 2: the time is Guy Kashani. He turns on most of death.
Speaker 2: He was part of his coalition, and it says, I'm
Speaker 2: not I can't take it anymore. You're you're reckless, You're
Speaker 2: you're power hungry. And so the ability to kind of
Speaker 2: get the clerics onside for a revolution was that made
Speaker 2: it much more potent in some ways. The problem was
Speaker 2: is that you, the person at the top of the
Speaker 2: of the heap, at the top of that movement, had
Speaker 2: no interest in sharing power and only an interest in
Speaker 2: installing Islamic government. And so the Red part, the socialist
Speaker 2: part in the West for years pretended that this was
Speaker 2: a democratic revolution when it wasn't. Omani stole the revolution.
Speaker 1: And killed his colleagues or comrade killed his colleagues.
Speaker 2: Did you know it was far worse than bloodier than
Speaker 2: the shot in any ways.
Speaker 1: It reminds me I just wanted to throw in here.
Speaker 1: Sorry to cut you off a minute, but I mean,
Speaker 1: it just reminds me of sort of how I get
Speaker 1: the sense and maybe you can correct me on this
Speaker 1: that if you apply the Palestinian branch of the Red
Speaker 1: Green alliance. You can kind of understand maybe why like
Speaker 1: the og reds so to speak, and sixties and seventies
Speaker 1: supported the PLO because they were more socialist tinged the way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they were, but they just never well maybe the
Speaker 1: ogs noticed this, but like nowadays, I think nobody really
Speaker 1: like they just sort of think of the PLO as
Speaker 1: being what the Palestinian movement is represented by that. They
Speaker 1: think Hamas is just a new version of that, when
Speaker 1: they don't realize that Hamas is the opposite in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. I mean, they they just never updated
Speaker 1: the people here in the West, never updated their undir
Speaker 1: understanding of what the Palestinian nationalist movement has more tended towards,
Speaker 1: which in my opinion is, you know, what it used
Speaker 1: to be when it started under Pajumin al Husseini. But
Speaker 1: putting that aside, I just I'm wondering if.
Speaker 2: That there I there's always been an Islamic element. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: Pajamin Alsani was not really a political Islamist the way
Speaker 2: that Kossum of the Cossum I'm forgetting his full name,
Speaker 2: but Am yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, the Alkassam who that's
Speaker 2: the Kamas names there militia after he really was a
Speaker 2: has and Albana style site cutch up style Islamus. But
Speaker 2: he also but but it was it was close enough
Speaker 2: because Handramin Alsani made it, you know, started this lie
Speaker 2: that the Jews wanted to destroy Alaksa Mosque and rebuild
Speaker 2: the temple. That was never true, but that lie has
Speaker 2: persisted for one hundred years. And if you look at
Speaker 2: the name of October seventh, it was the Alaxa flood,
Speaker 2: So it retains a kind of grip on the Palacine movement.
Speaker 2: Arafat was largely a kind of secular leader. He adopted
Speaker 2: the times. He you know, kind of plaid lip service
Speaker 2: to international socialism and so forth. But he had a
Speaker 2: big tent. The plow was meant to be. But in
Speaker 2: two thousand, for the second Intfada, what what you know,
Speaker 2: under his leadership was created the Alaxa Martyr's Brigade, again
Speaker 2: playing back to Hajajamin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of
Speaker 2: Jerusalem for your listeners, who you know again spy this
Speaker 2: horrible why and that why has been used to just
Speaker 2: kill I don't know, untold thousands, right.
Speaker 1: And that yeah, I was gonna say that blending. I
Speaker 1: think that I think you can draw that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a different kind of blending, like you like in Iran.
Speaker 1: It's a little clearer because it was, just as you said,
Speaker 1: as we were saying a moment ago, a betrayal of
Speaker 1: the socialists, right, the you know, the liberals.
Speaker 2: You could even.
Speaker 1: Say so, so I can in that sense, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm saying perversely, I can kind of sympathize
Speaker 1: with the well, maybe not sympathize, but I can understand
Speaker 1: the ignorance that Western observers who don't really look into
Speaker 1: the history of all this stuff might allow themselves to
Speaker 1: be taken in by it. And that could partly explain
Speaker 1: the red green a line. But I do think that
Speaker 1: there's something else going on, and that's the idea of
Speaker 1: shared enemies. That seems to be what drives these alliances
Speaker 1: that have these disparate beliefs. I mean, as you were
Speaker 1: saying earlier, secular Marxists should have nothing in common with
Speaker 1: you know, islamus thugs frankly, but they both hate imperialism
Speaker 1: quote unquote, even though obviously they both like their own
Speaker 1: forms of imperialism.
Speaker 2: Right. But there's another there's another thing, like over the
Speaker 2: years that's crept into it, we should say, sure, and
Speaker 2: that is that there is a kind of exotification. There's
Speaker 2: a kind of like weird ye fetishization of like sincere
Speaker 2: revolutionary violence. There is a kind of extreme form of
Speaker 2: multiculturalism where you respect that these poor people, you know,
Speaker 2: let's respect their folk ways as it were. That is
Speaker 2: a version of the low the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Speaker 2: But what ends up happening, And this is the problem
Speaker 2: with these red green alliances. And I say this somebody
Speaker 2: who comes more from the Burkeiyan tradition, So I don't
Speaker 2: you know, don't count me in as a progressive necessarily,
Speaker 2: but I'm a familiar enough with where progressives are coming from.
Speaker 2: What that does is that it rases the history of
Speaker 2: every Palestinian woman who thinks they should have rights and
Speaker 2: own property and serve in juries that they you know,
Speaker 2: like it is it assumes that a group of violent
Speaker 2: authoritarian fanatics speaks for an entire population, when in fact
Speaker 2: they they terrorize the population they purport to speak for.
Speaker 2: And that's the story, that's the real moral failing of
Speaker 2: the modern left that has made Palestinianism their primary cause
Speaker 2: aside An in addition to the fact that Palestinianism if
Speaker 2: for at least their allies on the ground, their version
Speaker 2: of Palestinianism is not to build a new state of
Speaker 2: Palestine where everybody is free, despite you know, some of
Speaker 2: the marketing materials, but it's to nick game the existing
Speaker 2: Jewish state and replace it with, you know, an Islamic caliphate.
Speaker 2: I have no tolerance.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's become kind of and yeah, I was
Speaker 1: just going to say that's the other shared enemy is Israel,
Speaker 1: but more broadly the Jews. I think honestly, at this
Speaker 1: point it's become pretty synonymous when you're saying those things
Speaker 1: that like, oh, I just you know Israel, Well, Israel
Speaker 1: has become a proxy for the imperialist demon that these
Speaker 1: people don't like. But it does. I think it has.
Speaker 1: I mean, as you said at the end of your
Speaker 1: your two parter you talked about I believe I wrote
Speaker 1: this down. You call them Committee's new suckers, specifically those
Speaker 1: who identify with the right that that is the Tucker
Speaker 1: car the world, yes, and the brown green or for
Speaker 1: some reason green brown just sounds better to me. I
Speaker 1: don't know why. It's an aesthetic thing. But yeah, and
Speaker 1: I've seen people claim and I'm sure you've seen this too,
Speaker 1: especially on X, that that well Tucker suddenly a leftist,
Speaker 1: and I've always like and I'm like, I get it
Speaker 1: if you only pay attention to the red green Alliance
Speaker 1: stuff that is out there. It's well covered territory, but
Speaker 1: I think it misses the mark. And I think the
Speaker 1: best way to sort of understand this green brown, brown,
Speaker 1: green alliance is too well one to look at the
Speaker 1: history of such alliances, which is, you know, pretty extensive.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if you've heard of figures
Speaker 1: like David Mayat or Auchmed Hubert, Aukmed Huber, especially because
Speaker 1: he had some he was wrapped up in the funding
Speaker 1: of al Qaeda in the early two thousands.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah I can, yeah, I can. I can send you
Speaker 1: some links to stuff about him. Is really interesting because
Speaker 1: he was well, he actually met the Grand Muffie of
Speaker 1: Rusalomjajamin al Husseini in Beirut after he had converted in
Speaker 1: the sixties. Oh for him, yeah, exactly. But yeah, he's
Speaker 1: he was a Swiss national. I think he died in
Speaker 1: two thousand and five or something like that in his eighties.
Speaker 1: But he had originally been part of the I guess
Speaker 1: you could say, the proto Red Green Alliance and had
Speaker 1: become disillusioned with you know, Western imperialism as you do
Speaker 1: back in the day, and then he started to make
Speaker 1: contacts with these groups in the Middle East. But then
Speaker 1: he became a convert. And then interestingly, his transformation was
Speaker 1: a reverse where after becoming a convert and palating around
Speaker 1: with Nasser in Egypt, he started to become really close
Speaker 1: with far right groups in Europe, including the Lapenz Party
Speaker 1: and the Neo Nazi Party in Germany, and forgetting the
Speaker 1: name of it, the one that is that got sidelined
Speaker 1: by af D regardless though he's just a good example
Speaker 1: of that. But my original point is that I think
Speaker 1: that when you really want to understand the Green Brown Alliance,
Speaker 1: all you got to do is look at the Muffty
Speaker 1: and his alliances. Yeah, with the Third Reich, that is,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, still very underrated as far as a
Speaker 1: corner of Third Reich history, and I think it's thankfully
Speaker 1: becoming corrected over time. I think I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that people like you and I are helping with that
Speaker 1: when we talk about him. But I think that there
Speaker 1: is this element of there is a missing link I
Speaker 1: think in understanding the sort of velvet gihad, as I
Speaker 1: call it, of Islamism, because it finds venues on the left,
Speaker 1: as we know, but it also finds venues on the right,
Speaker 1: with people like Tucker Carlson and you know, his sort
Speaker 1: of circle of paleo conservative influencers these days. And I
Speaker 1: don't know, I'm just I'm going on here. I want
Speaker 1: to let you respond on that.
Speaker 2: Paule understand where Tucker is coming from, sure, And my
Speaker 2: take on this is that it's almost funny because what's
Speaker 2: Tucker's like? If you look at Tucker's speech at Amfest
Speaker 2: in December, he has a peroration where he explains the
Speaker 2: difference between there are magas in our coalition and then
Speaker 2: it's America First. So he's mister America First. Now let's
Speaker 2: leave aside troubled history of that phrase or slogan, But
Speaker 2: if you're America first, what are you doing with interviewing
Speaker 2: the Iranian president, the kind of figurehead atop a regime
Speaker 2: that's killed so many Americans. If you're America First, why
Speaker 2: do you take Russian propaganda at face value. If you're
Speaker 2: I mean, like you just go through the list.
Speaker 1: If you're America first, why do you want to buy
Speaker 1: property and guitar all of a sudden.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, I mean that was a troll, but like
Speaker 2: exactly like if you're America first, So what I sort
Speaker 2: I almost like welcome, Like, okay, you want to have
Speaker 2: a convers station about who loves the country more I Tucker,
Speaker 2: I love the country far more than you. You You
Speaker 2: you suck up to our enemies, and you are you
Speaker 2: spout their propaganda. That's so I find that to be.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of people
Speaker 2: who are going to agree with it, I think, but
Speaker 2: the way to look at the problem of Tucker is
Speaker 2: there's always going to be an audience on the Internet,
Speaker 2: especially but in America too. I mean, we've always had
Speaker 2: cranks and conspiracy theorists and people who believe all kinds
Speaker 2: of wild things. The difference is that they weren't influential
Speaker 2: in helping the president select his running mate. So as
Speaker 2: long as I mean, if Tucker wants to run an
Speaker 2: Alex Jones show, you know where he talks about Chemtrail's
Speaker 2: and UFOs and the Jews with several o's instead of
Speaker 2: e W. Then hey, man, like it's like, go knock
Speaker 2: yourself out. I just don't. I just think we have
Speaker 2: to say if that's if that's who you are, then
Speaker 2: you cannot be, uh, you know, part of the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe that there are more of
Speaker 2: him than there are of me, but I doubt it.
Speaker 2: I think most Republicans, and there's a lot of polling.
Speaker 2: There was a great Manhattan Institute study in December that
Speaker 2: came out that backs this up. Basically, if if you
Speaker 2: like the the issue is most most Republicans, you know
Speaker 2: that they weren't born yesterday. They know about the hostage crisis,
Speaker 2: they know the role the Ironans Iranians played against our troops.
Speaker 2: And he's always talking about like I'm just in touch
Speaker 2: with the average you know, Americans. You know, we don't
Speaker 2: You're not gonna fight Israel's wars. Yeah, but like you're
Speaker 2: you're just glossing over. You never mentioned the fact that
Speaker 2: you know, you're you're like sucking up to people who
Speaker 2: were killing our guys in those wars. So well, you know,
Speaker 2: and also by the way it's it's very insulting. I
Speaker 2: also know a lot of vets. I've covered wars. I
Speaker 2: mainly covered the Iraq War, and I was there several times.
Speaker 2: It's insulting to tell somebody who fought a war, who
Speaker 2: saw what they saw and understood that they were fighting,
Speaker 2: you know, the remnants of a fascist Craisim and you know,
Speaker 2: a fanatic Islamist insurgency that oh, you're just fighting Israel's war.
Speaker 2: You're you're a sucker, you fought a worthless war of choice.
Speaker 2: When they know that when they secured a neighborhood, they
Speaker 2: could see with their own eyes in a lot of
Speaker 2: cases that there weren't suicide bombers, you know, going into marketplaces,
Speaker 2: and they weren't you know, that kind of thing. And
Speaker 2: so I've just always like, you know, there is a
Speaker 2: thing because you know, I didn't serve in the military,
Speaker 2: but I again, I spent a lot of time covering wars.
Speaker 2: But I think there is a kind of fear, because
Speaker 2: we do have a volunteer military to ever kind of
Speaker 2: engage in these questions that you can't just concede if
Speaker 2: if you just see the argument that like, oh no,
Speaker 2: you're bringing up the military Harry service thing. I guess
Speaker 2: whatever you say, okay, for the troops, it's deeply offensive
Speaker 2: to people who fought in a volunteer army, in a
Speaker 2: volunteer force wars that you know, one can disagree with,
Speaker 2: one can come out of, and saying you know that
Speaker 2: it was a mistake, we should have never gone in.
Speaker 2: That's fine, that's not what I'm talking about. But then't
Speaker 2: to say, you know what you are, You're a sap.
Speaker 2: You you fought a war for no reason. You were
Speaker 2: manipulated by these people. That's an old argument. Actually, it
Speaker 2: goes back to the thirties. Uh it before that, Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Was saying Smedley Butler.
Speaker 2: Sedley Butler is the one, and he wrote a book
Speaker 2: about He's a former Marine colonel who got caught up
Speaker 2: at one point in a coup against Roosevelt.
Speaker 1: I did. I did a fair I actually did an
Speaker 1: episode about him and about the business plot and uh yeah,
Speaker 1: war as a racket and the thing is like it
Speaker 1: was a very interesting sort of just a quick aside.
Speaker 1: I just thought it was really interesting his activities as
Speaker 1: an American imperialist in air quote there though actually wouldn't
Speaker 1: say it was air quotes that was under Woodrow Wilson.
Speaker 1: It was pretty pretty imperialist time, if you want to
Speaker 1: call it that, and the Banana Wars specifically down in
Speaker 1: the Caribbean and Central America, that those experiences led him
Speaker 1: to be the exact wrong guy for the business plotters
Speaker 1: to go to him. I still don't understand why they did,
Speaker 1: but you know, they they seem to think he was
Speaker 1: the guy because he was a populist, but they picked
Speaker 1: the patriot instead of a trader. But unfortunately, his understandable
Speaker 1: cynicism about the American way of doing things overseas has influenced,
Speaker 1: as you said, for decades the critiques of going to war,
Speaker 1: which are you can't make that they don't make sense
Speaker 1: across time, like every war is different. People can make
Speaker 1: a case for or against any war for all they want,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, they it's it's
Speaker 1: going to be a case by case basis. And as
Speaker 1: you said, it is insulting to especially when it's a
Speaker 1: volunteer army, to say that you know, you're a set.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have friends who are in the Marine
Speaker 1: Corps that hate people like Tucker Carlson for that very reason.
Speaker 2: So right, you know, yeah, no, so yeah, that's that's
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. And I just find that like, in
Speaker 2: some ways, because we live in a country now that's
Speaker 2: so stratisfied that most Americans don't know people serve in
Speaker 2: the military, that that just becomes like kind of an
Speaker 2: argument or discussion ender. And my view is, no, it should. No,
Speaker 2: it's not it should. I mean, I don't know, like
Speaker 2: I disagree, but anyway, in a weird way, I was
Speaker 2: much more worried about Tucker Carlson like four or five
Speaker 2: months ago than I am now. I just think he's
Speaker 2: made a series of incredibly stupid decisions and that he's
Speaker 2: in the process of marginalizing him himself. And I don't know,
Speaker 2: like for me, if you want to what's the waterloo
Speaker 2: of the Gropers Dropers, what's their waterloo? Their waterloo is
Speaker 2: that video that came out two or three weeks ago
Speaker 2: with them going in Miami playing the Kanye song Hell Hitler. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: first of all, and then people started going through and
Speaker 2: they're like saying, wait a second, all these people. I
Speaker 2: have no problem with people or who are gay, by
Speaker 2: the way, I'm not, But I'm just saying if you're.
Speaker 1: A gay Mexican.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the gay Mexican. Like I'm like, you know, he's like,
Speaker 2: oh no, no't bring the women over. And I'm just like, okay, guys,
Speaker 2: First of all, you're not doing it right, like if
Speaker 2: you want to do the douchey you know, misogynist dudes
Speaker 2: in a club, None of you look comfortable right now.
Speaker 2: All of you look ridiculous.
Speaker 1: And yeah, we're talking about Nick Fentes, by the way,
Speaker 1: in case people didn't pick up, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: And it's like, how yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, there's so many memes about how Hitler would have
Speaker 1: killed himself all over again if he saw who.
Speaker 2: Was there was that great downfall meme that came out
Speaker 2: where they were talking. Yeah, yeah, I'm just like, okay,
Speaker 2: I think that that's like, you know, what's the phrase
Speaker 2: that's Fonzie jumping the shark on happy Days? That's like, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: no longer kind of that cool anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, and it's hard to really understand, like how sincere
Speaker 1: a lot of this is. I mean, I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: heard people. People have probably asked you is Tucker serious
Speaker 1: or is he whatever? And and I've actually just started
Speaker 1: listening to the new book that just came out by
Speaker 1: Jason Zengerly.
Speaker 2: I think, oh yeah, he's an old friend, and I'm
Speaker 2: looking forward to reading that.
Speaker 1: It's I'm blasting through it because it's really compelling stuff.
Speaker 1: But it also might go over a lot of territory
Speaker 1: you know already because it's you know, goes back. But
Speaker 1: but as you said, though, it's a little different, and
Speaker 1: I agree that there does seem to be a bit
Speaker 1: of a muted nature to that sphere, the Tucker Carlson sphere,
Speaker 1: And I think maybe, as you said, that Waterloo for
Speaker 1: the Groebers might have actually kind of ruined the party
Speaker 1: for the people who are trying to be quote unquote
Speaker 1: high iq anti Semites. And and as you said, it's
Speaker 1: a little different though, even with this like diminishing seemingly
Speaker 1: diminishing influence or luster that he is helping, he did,
Speaker 1: as you said, helped select the vice president, you know,
Speaker 1: and that's all sting in somebody who is, as far
Speaker 1: as I know, he died in the wole quote unquote
Speaker 1: postliberal as he would call himself, and somebody who very
Speaker 1: clearly has very little regard for the Constitution, very little
Speaker 1: regard for liberal norms. Hence the name postliberal. He seems
Speaker 1: to love indulging in the you know, uh, the Catholic
Speaker 1: integralist types like for Mule and Denin and so forth.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, I kind of understand why. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying JD. Vance has done this, because as
Speaker 1: far as I know, he hasn't. But when it comes
Speaker 1: down to, uh, like, why would someone on the right
Speaker 1: support Islamists like Tucker seems to, or at least seem
Speaker 1: to be doing in twenty twenty five, you know, glowing
Speaker 1: up the Taliban's drug rehab program, for example, or talking
Speaker 1: about how Shariah sounds like an amazing thing, or the
Speaker 1: fact that submission sounds like an amazing principle for a
Speaker 1: religious society. I can see why someone in the post
Speaker 1: liberal camp or the so called America First camp, who
Speaker 1: might have a religious tendency on the level of Tucker
Speaker 1: would be fans of something like Islamism because it's you know,
Speaker 1: a shared value of theocracy and a shared again distrust
Speaker 1: or hatred of Israel.
Speaker 2: And well, he has said as much. He says like, oh,
Speaker 2: I can't leave my Lamborghini and no one will steal it, and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, you know, it's like, yes, everyone in Gatar
Speaker 1: is a Lamborghini, that's exactly how it works.
Speaker 2: Or like his whole thing about well, you know, look
Speaker 2: at all the Christian Church and like there are no
Speaker 2: Christian churches in fucking Saudi Arabia. Moron. Yeah, and you
Speaker 2: look at oh, they're looking at all the Christians in Qatar,
Speaker 2: and they're all guest workers who aren't who don't have
Speaker 2: the citizenship rights. They're easily checkable facts, which is why
Speaker 2: it's like it's yes, you know, this is like maybe
Speaker 2: it sounds smart for if you're totally uninformed. And I
Speaker 2: think he's getting a lot of mileage out of the
Speaker 2: fact that and he was attacked in the late twenty
Speaker 2: teens by the left. They were hysterical and they were wrong,
Speaker 2: so you know they I don't agree. By the way,
Speaker 2: I'm a big My view is that like America as
Speaker 2: a concept, one of its great strength is that we
Speaker 2: are a magnet for genius from all over the world.
Speaker 2: So I like, I'm not open borders, and I'm not
Speaker 2: you know, I think in citizenships should mean something and
Speaker 2: borders should mean something. So I'm not coming at this
Speaker 2: from like the George Soros left but I also think
Speaker 2: that one of the great things about our country is
Speaker 2: that like you know, have a big wall with a
Speaker 2: with a with a giant door, like let people in
Speaker 2: who are going to renew and and and bring their
Speaker 2: genius to create jobs and enrich our great country. That's
Speaker 2: a big part of what America is. Everybody nobody is
Speaker 2: really from here. Everybody came here. But that said, if
Speaker 2: you're if, you're when. But when Tucker would say, you
Speaker 2: know this, there's a there's a strategic reason as to
Speaker 2: why Democrats are open borders now because they think they're
Speaker 2: bringing in all these new voters. Democrats were saying that
Speaker 2: he was quoting them. This was the theory of the
Speaker 2: case in you know, especially Obama's second term, that the
Speaker 2: browning of America meant that like maybe this was the
Speaker 2: end of the Republican Party. There was a lot of
Speaker 2: triumphalism that was based on these kind of demographic changes.
Speaker 2: So when they would say, aha, the replacement theory, you're
Speaker 2: a white nationalist, you're a Nazi. I was somewhat sympathetic
Speaker 2: to Tucker, even though I kind of disagreed with that argument.
Speaker 2: So I'm just saying he was getting a lot of
Speaker 2: mileage out of that. He's getting a lot of mileage
Speaker 2: out of what might be called elite conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: It's self reinforcing in a sense.
Speaker 2: Right, But he it turns out he himself is a
Speaker 2: conspiracy theorist for real. And you know now now we
Speaker 2: all can can see it. So anyway, there you go.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, And and I you know, I will defer
Speaker 1: to you on your judgments on how what what. I mean,
Speaker 1: No one knows what's in his heart, obviously, but I
Speaker 1: mean clearly he's indulged in a lot of jew baiting,
Speaker 1: I'll say, in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean, he's he's the worst in that regard.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, And I don't know how tactical that
Speaker 1: is or how sincere that is. As you said, he's conspiratorial.
Speaker 1: And as you know, every conspiracy theory ends one place,
Speaker 1: and that actually was kind of one thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we have we have a little bit more time
Speaker 1: here as.
Speaker 2: Well as Trump, Trump's a conspiracy theorist and he is true.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean I think having a son in law,
Speaker 1: a Jewish son in law, might help a little bit.
Speaker 2: But yeah, but you're right, you're generally right yes, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean well, and I was going to say, that's
Speaker 1: the thing about conspiracy theories always ending with Jews is
Speaker 1: that there does seem to be this, Like I said,
Speaker 1: the common thread between these alliances is is the shared hatreds,
Speaker 1: And the more extreme it gets in these alliances, the
Speaker 1: more it gets fixated on Jews, usually by proxy through
Speaker 1: something like Israel. But I guess, like what I'm wondering
Speaker 1: is like, is that just kind of inevitable when it
Speaker 1: comes to relatively radical ideologies because they they need conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories to function? That seems to be the sense I'm
Speaker 1: getting the more I study it, And I'm wondering because
Speaker 1: of that, does that just is that sort of what
Speaker 1: makes anti Semitism kind of an inevitaby, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know that radical movements necessarily need conspiracy theories. Okay,
Speaker 2: I think that radical movements need I mean, there's a
Speaker 2: have you read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer?
Speaker 1: I have, yes, I should read it again, which is.
Speaker 2: A great book, and I actually it's an amazing list.
Speaker 2: Like I want to do a breaking history on him
Speaker 2: because he was fascinating because he's.
Speaker 1: Like a long Shorman selfman yeah.
Speaker 2: And he's somebody who is himself. I love Autodidas. I
Speaker 2: think it's a great American tradition. He himself like kind
Speaker 2: of becomes an intellectual outside of the university, which I
Speaker 2: really love stories of that. But Eric Hoffer thinks of
Speaker 2: like his as you know in that book. What he
Speaker 2: says is you get revolutionary moments when a group of
Speaker 2: people experience a kind of rapid, you know, plummeting of
Speaker 2: their wealth and status. That's a revolutionary moment. I think,
Speaker 2: like when that happens, yes, one can't let me part
Speaker 2: Like this a conspiracy theory, if you believe in conspiracy theory,
Speaker 2: is that there is a hidden hand. It is simultaneously
Speaker 2: personally empowering because you know something that all of the
Speaker 2: sheep don't see. But it's also an acknowledgment of powerlessness.
Speaker 2: So what's the point of writing an op ed or
Speaker 2: joining a protest or voting or any of the things
Speaker 2: that we do in open, liberal democratic society. Ease if
Speaker 2: you see that the whole game is rigged. Follow where
Speaker 2: I'm going with this, Alex. So yeah, you know, so, like, yes,
Speaker 2: I understand that there is a kind of a link there.
Speaker 2: But if you want to be a successful radical, you
Speaker 2: can't give into that because radicalism at a certain level
Speaker 2: kind of at least if you're if you take it seriously,
Speaker 2: like you're like, all right, well I believe these things
Speaker 2: we need drastic action, but I got to do it
Speaker 2: like I'm going to be the change. Whereas if you
Speaker 2: really believe in conspiracy theories, it's like, well, what's the
Speaker 2: what how could I possibly compete with, you know, the
Speaker 2: cabal and their black helicopters?
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, and and so in that sense, then because
Speaker 1: a lot of the time in history Jews have been
Speaker 1: turned into scapegoats, that that tends to become part of
Speaker 1: the the explanation for why something doesn't work out in
Speaker 1: a sense, and that like why would I compete, as
Speaker 1: you said, because they own the media so called so
Speaker 1: to speak? Right?
Speaker 2: Is that usually that one if you look at the
Speaker 2: coverage of Israel and like the New York Times, I
Speaker 2: was gonna say, I'm like, I am a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 2: I like, I wish these Jews would stop running the media.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm Jewish, but like you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: it's like, really, like you think that that's the Jewish conspiracy.
Speaker 2: Come on, like, give me a break. This is great man.
Speaker 2: I'll have me on any time, and keep doing what
Speaker 2: you're doing. I want to encourage everybody to listening to
Speaker 2: what you're doing and keep an ear out for Breaking
Speaker 2: History season two coming in May, where you'll you're free
Speaker 2: press subscribe you'll get all the episodes at all at once,
Speaker 2: or you'll have to wait, you know, and then we're
Speaker 2: gonna be dropping some bonus content here and there.
Speaker 1: Well, and that was gonna close by asking you what
Speaker 1: was in store for Breaking History, so you just.
Speaker 2: I don't want to give up the topic. It's but
Speaker 2: it's a good one.
Speaker 1: Sure, okay, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks a lot
Speaker 1: of you live all right, thank you.
Speaker 6: He used to talk in all right deathlike glow, mister
Speaker 6: cable guy, but he got bored of the same old fight.
Speaker 4: Now he's chasing storms and the dead up night. He
Speaker 4: ran one bread and he.
Speaker 3: Lost his head baby water, what a right?
Speaker 4: Oh tuck up, Tucker, did you do?
Speaker 3: I love it the dream Now it's having you come
Speaker 3: tell me in heart gone law off.
Speaker 4: The deep end track you you ran so funes and
Speaker 4: your left the get back.
Speaker 3: Tuck up to by you man, you're kissing the crown
Speaker 3: at the cuts against the Labe. He wants us rules,
Speaker 3: ropes and stern old man as long as the skull
Speaker 3: in his old best friends, every wild take it, he says.
Speaker 4: That's my jam.
Speaker 3: If it's scares you, mom, he says, that's who I am.
Speaker 4: You'll cheer any drone just to stand a lone money.
Speaker 6: That's all a mess.
Speaker 3: So tuck up, Tucker, did you do fell in love
Speaker 3: with the Feaver dream?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 4: It's noting you.
Speaker 3: Come carry and walk on up off the deep en tracks.
Speaker 3: You you're in so far reason you'll nerve to get back.
Speaker 4: Tucker boy, you lost your mom.
Speaker 3: He'll kiss any crown at the cuts against the lie.
Speaker 4: Said that's kind of scary.
Speaker 3: He said, that's why I'm so into any baby, he said,
Speaker 3: discounts extreme, He said, exactly, that's the dream.
Speaker 4: Oh, Tucker, talker, did you do that? Love? But the
Speaker 4: dream now it's having you come carry and honk of
Speaker 4: the deepen track. You your insult.
Speaker 3: And you'll never forget back Tucker.
Speaker 4: Oh, you lost your life? Your cheer any root long
Speaker 4: made checks the time yo, talk up Talker gone too far?
Speaker 4: Talk up Tucker's spin around that twisted stop.
Speaker 1: To all Right, that was an awesome conversation. Many thanks
Speaker 1: again to Eli Lake for making the time, carving it
Speaker 1: out of his obviously very busy schedule to talk to
Speaker 1: me about the Red Green Brown Alliance, so to speak,
Speaker 1: and everything that's been going on with Iran, both past
Speaker 1: and present, and all the other things that we touched on. Anyway,
Speaker 1: like I said, I really appreciate him coming on and
Speaker 1: I'm really excited for more conversations like that this year.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty six, I actually have another one on tap.
Speaker 1: It's a very very exciting surprise, I think for a
Speaker 1: lot of you listening, and that'll be coming very soon.
Speaker 1: Before I wrap us up here, I want to give
Speaker 1: some shout outs to the people who have been supporting
Speaker 1: History Impossible over on Patreon or sub stack at the
Speaker 1: comrades and friends level or above. These people include Bob Downing,
Speaker 1: Sam Graham, Greg Hunter, Brian Joy, Soo, Skip Pachaco, Molly Pan,
Speaker 1: John Pisano on Our, PJ Raider, Matthew m Rice, Philip Rice,
Speaker 1: Emily Schmidt, Pire Vupuni, and f you. All of these
Speaker 1: people are amazing, amazing folks who are willing to I
Speaker 1: don't know, just like carve a little bit out of
Speaker 1: their budget to help me do what I'm doing here,
Speaker 1: and I really appreciate it. I cannot stress that enough.
Speaker 1: And if any of you listening enjoyed this conversation with
Speaker 1: Eli that I had or anything that I do, and
Speaker 1: want to hear more of it and keep this thing going,
Speaker 1: please think about heading over to historympossible dot com and
Speaker 1: becoming a paid subscriber, or over to Patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash History Impossible and becoming a Patreon at whatever level
Speaker 1: you feel comfortable with. So thank you again to everybody
Speaker 1: who's listened, and please stay tuned for the next episode
Speaker 1: of History Impossible.